The Universalist. [volume] (Chicago [Ill.]) 1884-1897, 1887-02-12
HAD NATURE A BEGINNING7
what Can They Meanp" Again. Reply of
Rev.J. Merrifeld and Rejoinder of"X.Y.Z."
REV, ]. MERR1r1ELp,s REPLY.

REV, ]. MERRIFIELD'S REPLY.
Some one of my dear friends, over tn
signature "X. Y. z.," devotes space il
the last UNIvERsALIsT to review O
my article on "What can they mean?'
in the issue of Jan. %, to which, in jus
tice to myself, brief reply is due.
am charged, in the review, of "al
most'' assuming ''that all thought thai
is old is untrue because it is old''; and
then am treated as if 1 actually as
sumed this; when in fact, I neither al.
together nor almost assumed anything
of the kind. l, as well as my beloved
reviewer, believe all he says about the
antiquity of truth, and about our abili-
ty to know truth; and there is nothing
in my article that is opposed thereto.
Therefore, every thing said in the re-
view under this head is entirely irrele-
want.
Again, 1 am treated as if /, myself,
professed absolutely to know that crea-
tion is eternal, when as every one ought
to understand who has read my article,
l only stated the conclusion as "a neces-
sity of rational thought" and not as
an object of absolute knowledge. am
treated as if claimed "newness as a
proof of truth l'' an absurdity too glar-
ing for anybody to entertain, and too
ridiculous for anybody to have discov-
cred in my article. "What proof does
our author give, that the doctrines of a
notwithstanding, and miracles, are
untenable assumptions ?" says my dear
friend. reply; the fact that these
assumptions have themselves never
been proved, and that they appear to
me unprovable in fact and irrational in
thought, is a sufficient cause for regard
ing them as untenable assumptions.
The fact of beginning and ending in
time of each individual or specialized
object, or collection Of objects, seems
to. have impressed men in the infancy of
the race, with the notion that creation
itself, in the absolute, had a beginning
and ending. That creation in the alb
solute had no beginning, and will have
no ending, nationally infer from
what we know, or think we know, of
the divine nature, and from what we
see of the divine operation in and
through all nature in all worlds. To
be sure, this knowledge is very limited,
but limited as it is, it is the only legit-
innate basis of our reasoning.
Again, my beloved reviewer says:
"No fact is better established than that
the order of existence which reveals
the presence of action and of mind has
had beginning" If no fact is better
established, the proof Of the PROPOSE
tion must be easy enough; but so far as
l can see, no proof can be given to show
that the eternal Mind ever absolutely
began to assert himself, or began to
have objective manifestations of him
self.
|. The proposition that mans percep.
tions of creation had beginning is an
other thing, and is not involved in the
point at issue. To urge that matter"
as we see it, "atoms," as we cognize
them, molecules, plants, animals and
men had beginning, are creations and
were created" is all irrelevant, be-
cause no denial of this is even implied
in my article; but that "life" and ''rea-
son" absolutely had beginning deny;
for otherwise God, who is the eternal
life, and mind and reason, must have
had beginning.
My dear friend repudiates the doc.
trine of creation from nothing, and in
Inmates that 1 misrepresent the doc
trine of creation as commonly held; but
he Immediately adds: "Theism does
not teach that creation came out of
nothing, that the world was made out
of nothing, or any such absurd nom
sense.''
Indeed Theism-pure theism, verify
teaches no'such nonsense but this is
coming over to my side, for my ground
is, that theism teaches no such non
sense. The trouble is with the prevail
ing theology; not with theism. The
prevailing theology teaches such non
sense, just as it teaches much Other
nonsense +; and that was the point OF
my article. My article was directed
against that point, and against the com.
mon acquiescence in that point, with the
sanction of it afforded by so many
through their retention of the terms
supernatural" and miraculous" anG
their treatment of the things of relig
ion as things dependent on "the su
I pernatural," and "the miraculous"
Theism, indeed, teaches no ''sucl
nonsense" but the prevailing theology
teaches it, as we see by the "Westmins
ter Confession Of Faith" thus: ST
pleased God = + for the nantes
tation of his eternal power, wisdom
and goodness, in the beginning, to ere
ate or make Of nothing, the world ant
all things therein. whether visible q